Supreme Court of India Judgements

46448 Judgements hosted as on 05/05/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: C P C

C P C

Pecuniary Jurisdiction—Objection with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction cannot be taken for the first time before the appellate court —Section 21 CPC contains a legislative policy which policy has an object and purpose—The object is also to avoid retrial of cases on merit on basis of technical objections

Dec 16, 2018 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 2800 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1741 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan Civil Appeal Nos. 9051…

C P C

No delay was caused by petitioner in filing application for restoration–Petitioner had been diligently prosecuting the litigation since 1982–Improper to punish petitioner for non-appearance of his counsel–Orders of the High Court set aside.                                   

Nov 21, 2018 sclaw

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 392 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha Civil Appeal Nos. 7648-7649 of 2009…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O. 4, R. 2–Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S. 149–Court Fee Act, 1870, S. 4–Deficit Court fee–Plaintiff sought permission to make up deficiency–Court whether can allow the application without notice to the opposite party–Held; Yes–Court fee is a matter between State and the suitor.–Mention of a wrong provisions or non-mentioning of a provisions does not invalidate an order if the Court and/or statutory authority had the requisite jurisdiction.

Nov 20, 2018 sclaw

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 346 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Verma Civil Appeal No. 4643 of 2009…

C P C

Amendment of written statement–Petitioners were fully aware of the Will in question, but had not even mentioned the same in their written statement–Petitioners attempted to introduce a new story by way of defence in order to prolong the disposal of the appeal–Amendment of pleadings not allowed.

Nov 13, 2018 sclaw

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 232 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3592…

C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 and Section 151–Interim Injunction–High Court set aside the order of injunction passed by the trial Court–Appeal–Object of the Trust in wanting to acquire the suit property was to extend its school unit and if the suit property is allowed to be commercially exploited, the entire object of the suit filed by the appellant Trust will be rendered meaningless–Order of the High Court set aside–Appeal allowed–In the light of the principles of balance of convenience and inconvenience, interim relief should be granted to the appellant Trust.                   

Nov 12, 2018 sclaw

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 209 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph Civil Appeal Nos. 8081-8082 of 2009…

C P C

Withdrawal of Suit–Trial court dismissed the suit for partition as withdrawn–In terms of order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is the privilege of the plaintiff alone to withdraw the plaint at any stage of the proceedings and the appellant being only one of the defendants having played the fraud in getting the suit dismissed as withdrawn, has no locus to object to the restoration of the suit.

Nov 11, 2018 sclaw

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 143 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Sudershan Reddy The Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal Civil Appeal No. 8407 of…

C P C

Second Appeal—Reasoned Order—It is of no significance, whether the respondent has appeared at the time of final hearing of the appeal or not. – The High Court, in any case, has to proceed in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 100 while disposing of the appeal, whether in limine or at the final hearing stage.

Nov 3, 2018 sclaw

2018(3) Law Herald (SC) 1766 :2018 LawHerald.Org 1108 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Civil Appeal Nos. 9118-9119…

C P C

Injunction—Question of Title—Findings of title can be recorded in a suit for injunction if there are necessary and appropriate issues regarding question of title Second Appeal—Question of Title—High Court while dismissing the second appeal being devoid of merit was not justified in making an observation which has the potential of reopening the already settled issue of title in respect of the suit property—Such findings set aside

Nov 1, 2018 sclaw

2018(3) Law Herald (SC) 2337 : 2017 LawHerald.Org 1522 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA — Appellant  Vs.  VIJAY KRISHNA UNIYAL (D) THROUGH L.RS. — Respondent ( Before : Kurian…

You missed

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120-B read with Section 420 – Cheating – The case involves fraudulent transactions by accused in connivance with Indian Bank officials resulting in interest-free advances to the petitioners – The main issue is whether the petitioners were involved in cheating the bank and if they availed any undue benefit from the fraudulent transactions – The petitioners argued that they were not involved in the cheating, had not availed any undue benefit, and that the transactions were normal business dealings – The court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, upholding the Trial Court’s conviction of the petitioners for cheating the bank through unauthorized transactions.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 1663 days – The State of U.P. filed a SLP against an order dated 13.11.2009 by the Allahabad High Court, with a delay of 1,633 days – The main issue was the condonation of the significant delay in filing the SLP – The State argued that the delay was due to the time taken for obtaining legal opinion and permissions, and later, the realization that the appeal was not filed initially – The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and consequently, the SLP was also dismissed – The court found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory, especially since the State was aware of the High Court’s order when it was passed – The court did not find sufficient cause to condone the delay, leading to the dismissal of the SLP.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Property Matters

Partition Suit – The dispute involves partition of properties left by Late ‘R’ with the main contention over roof rights of a property in Kota and another in Jaipur – The primary issue is the valuation of roof rights for further construction and the equal distribution of property among co-sharers – The appellants argue that the valuation report failed to assess the value of roof rights, which would affect the overall property valuation and entitlement of co-sharers – The respondents maintain that the property valuation and shares were appropriately determined by the approved Valuer and upheld by both the Trial Court and High Court – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in revaluating the property or altering the determined shares of the parties – The Court emphasized the importance of family ties over property disputes and suggested alternative dispute resolution methods for amicable settlements – The Court referenced the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited, advocating for ADR in family-related property disputes – The Supreme Court concluded that revisiting the valuation and partition would only prolong litigation and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Constitution Municipal Laws

West Bengal Municipal(Building) Rules, 2007 – Rule 50 – Open spaces for building in areas other than municipalities in hill areas – The appellants challenge the High Court of Calcutta’s order regarding a contempt petition related to their residential property construction and its compliance with Rule 50 of Rules, 2007 – The appellants argue that the writ petition was a private matter and should not have been entertained by the High Court – They also claim that municipal authorities are unfairly pressuring them due to the contempt proceedings – The respondent claims that the appellants violated the sanctioned building plan, justifying the High Court’s direction for an enquiry – The Supreme Court allowed the appellants to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, ensuring their objections would be considered objectively without prejudice from the contempt or writ proceedings – The court expressed reservations about the High Court’s exercise of writ jurisdiction in a private dispute and suggested the civil court as the appropriate forum for grievances – The appeal was disposed of with the appellants given the liberty to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, without cost order.

May 5, 2024 sclaw